SSAR Publishers — Publication Ethics Policy

At SSAR Publishers, we are committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and take all possible measures against any publication malpractice. Our ethical policy adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and applies to all stakeholders involved in the publication process — authors, editors, reviewers, and readers.

For comprehensive information on publishing and ethical guidelines, please visit publicationethics.org.

The ethical policy determines the publication eligibility of research papers or articles submitted to the Journal for a particular issue. All parties involved in the publishing process — Authors, Editors, and Reviewers — are expected to comply with the ethical duties outlined below.

1. Duties of Authors

1.1 Authorship of the Paper Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research, they should be acknowledged.

1.2 Originality and Plagiarism Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

1.3 Data Access and Retention Authors may be asked to provide the raw data related to their manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable period after publication.

1.4 Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication Authors should not submit or publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior.

1.5 Acknowledgment of Sources Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

1.6 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest Authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their work. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

1.7 Fundamental Errors in Published Works When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate to retract or correct the paper.

1.8 Reporting Standards Authors of original research reports should present an accurate account of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

1.9 Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines, and the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them.

1.10 Use of Patient Images or Case Details Studies involving patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval, and documented informed consent should be provided in the manuscript as applicable.

1.11 Authorship Changes Requests to add, remove, or rearrange author names in the byline of an already published article are considered under the following conditions:

• Adding or removing a corresponding author before publication.
• Adding or removing a corresponding author after publication.

Process for Authorship Changes:

1. Valid reasons for the requested change must be provided in writing to the editor.
2. All authors — including the author(s) being added or removed — must confirm their agreement in writing.
3. If unanimous agreement is reached, the change will be processed and reflected in an official correction notice (for post-publication changes).
4. If unanimous agreement cannot be reached, the article will remain unchanged and the matter may be referred to the authors’ institution(s) for resolution, consistent with COPE guidance.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1 Publication Decisions The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may confer with reviewers and other editors in making these decisions.

2.2 Fair Play Editors must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

2.3 Confidentiality Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.

2.5 Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations Editors should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints are presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. This obligation extends to promptly investigating claims of misconduct, seeking clarification from authors where required, and pursuing corrections, clarifications, retractions, or apologies as needed, in line with COPE guidance.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1 Contribution to Editorial Decisions Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

3.2 Promptness Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or who cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe, should promptly notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

3.3 Confidentiality Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, others except as authorized by the editor.

3.4 Objectivity Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5 Acknowledgment of Sources Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript.

4. Retraction and Correction Policy

4.1 Grounds for Retraction SSAR Publishers may retract a published article if:

• There is clear evidence of unreliable findings, whether as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error;
• The findings have been previously published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification;
• The work constitutes plagiarism or fails to disclose a major conflict of interest that, in the editor’s judgment, would have unduly influenced interpretations or recommendations; or
• The article reports unethical research.

4.2 Process

1. Concerns may be raised by readers, authors, reviewers, or editors and should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief.
2. The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the editorial board, will investigate the concern, which may include seeking a response from the author(s).
3. Where retraction or correction is warranted, the decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, and the journal will publish a formal retraction or correction notice linked to the original article, clearly stating the reason.
4. Retracted articles will remain accessible (marked as “Retracted”) to preserve the scholarly record, in line with COPE’s retraction guidelines.

4.3 Corrections Minor errors that do not affect the overall interpretation of the article’s findings may be addressed through a published correction (erratum/corrigendum) rather than a full retraction.

5. Plagiarism and Misconduct

SSAR Publishers maintains a zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism and copyright infringement. All submissions may be screened using plagiarism-detection tools. If misconduct is identified — either before or after publication — SSAR Publishers will take immediate corrective measures in accordance with COPE guidelines, up to and including formal retraction of the article and notification of the author’s institution, where appropriate.

This policy is periodically reviewed and updated in line with evolving COPE guidance and best practices in scholarly publishing. Changes will apply prospectively and will not retroactively alter the terms governing previously published works.